Creationism vs Evolution

Bambi · 11-01-2006, 04:55 PM

Is the world a product of Creationism or Evolutionism? Intelligent Design maybe?

In essence, could Darwin take Jesus?

Mercury · 11-01-2006, 04:58 PM

we are the creation of our environment.

JcP · 11-01-2006, 05:05 PM

creationism is being raped by religious nuts.

Evolution is a science. It does not pretend to debate where the "first cells" that eventually evolved into us came from. It's not about CREATION, its about, well, evolution.

Personally, this world isn't a "product" of anything. It just is. And it is exactly what it's meant to be.

verklingen · 11-01-2006, 07:46 PM

A product implies a producer. Everything is, eternally.

Evolution is good at describing steps in the process of being, but nothing is good at describing the first step. This leads me to believe that there is no first step.

BUT, all steps have a direction to them, so all steps have an intelligence.

tokinGLX · 11-01-2006, 07:54 PM

as pertaining to the orgin of life on this planet, i support the miller/urey experiment in its explanation of things.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html
Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.

JcP · 11-01-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

A product implies a producer. Everything is, eternally.

Evolution is good at describing steps in the process of being, but nothing is good at describing the first step. This leads me to believe that there is no first step.

BUT, all steps have a direction to them, so all steps have an intelligence.

a set direction?

bongsmilie

Verkie, I'm loving the synchronicity of our posts lately. Makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.

In the non-sexual way of course.

JcP · 11-01-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokinGLX

as pertaining to the orgin of life on this planet, i support the miller/urey experiment in its explanation of things.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html
Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.

completely ignores the question of "where did the molecules come from."

Just like evolution. Imho.

tokinGLX · 11-01-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

completely ignores the question of "where did the molecules come from."

Just like evolution. Imho.

my thoughts are that the big bang occured when all of the matter of the universe had gone from being the largest, and most likely only star in exsistance, collapsed into an incredibly large black hole, which further imploded, which was the big bang that sent our present universe on its current course. so the molecules came, or evolved from the molecules that came from that big bang.

SmokeSomeDoja · 11-01-2006, 08:29 PM

the whole thing is taken to extremes. one can believe in evolution and natural selection and still believe in a higher power. its completely compatible. its just the fundamentalist religious and scientific groups that refuse any leeway between the two.

JcP · 11-01-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokinGLX

my thoughts are that the big bang occured when all of the matter of the universe had gone from being the largest, and most likely only star in exsistance, collapsed into an incredibly large black hole, which further imploded, which was the big bang that sent our present universe on its current course. so the molecules came, or evolved from the molecules that came from that big bang.

/wipes eyes.

Don't follow you. So our universe is an evolved state of molecules that came from the big bang?

and those molecules came from?

It's neverending...hence "it's always been."

verklingen · 11-02-2006, 07:51 AM

Yeah yeah yeah tokinGLX, science can be pretty good at explaining how some things happen but it can never explain why. If anyone here knows anything about electronics, science analyzes aspects of our reality as if they were wired in series rather than how they are actually wired: in parallel. Chaos Theory got close, but it was too "right" for huffed-up scientists.

In thinking of reality as a series circuit (physical reality) science is always searching, moving from one capacitor (manifestation) to the next to discover the battery (origin). But what science fails to realize is that existence does not run in series: it is not a string of Christmas lights which shuts off when a single bulb fails, but a string of blinking, twinkling Christmas lights run in parallel which shut on and off according to a predictable pattern.

Science fails to realize that there is no battery; that the circuit powers itself, without beginning or end. Something need not follow some other thing as Miller/Urey propose because all things exist at the same time like all components in a parallel circuit are powered at the same time. Of course the parallel circuit of existence much be quite complex indeed, but grasping it is as simple as understanding some Christmas lights. I love Christmas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

Verkie, I'm loving the synchronicity of our posts lately. Makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.

In the non-sexual way of course.

Yes my friend, it seems we are all progressing. I think of you guys as a second family, and I take everything from my family seriously (except the insults

). This won't be the last!

The Rev · 11-02-2006, 06:32 PM

I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive ideas. God could have set a world in motion that constantly changes. That's not a far out concept. In fact, the only reason there is a conflict between these two ideas is because some folks need to believe that God, and His religion (whatever you may happen to believe is His religion) are infallible.

The bible describes a creation of the world that isn't borne out by the evidence at hand, as science has ably demonstrated. I say, "So what? The bible is wrong." It's not the end of the world, or of God. However, some people believe that if the bible can be wrong, maybe their religion can be wrong. Jeez, even GOD might be wrong. Now, suddenly, they have to think about it, and thinking is what they were trying to avoid by becoming zealously loyal to their religion in the first place.

I say, "Think for yourself; derive your own conclusions from the evidence at hand." There is faith in that, too, and all the logic that science could ever want.

The Rev

verklingen · 11-02-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slunt

Is that a form of God?

What isn't?

**Home Wrecker** · 11-02-2006, 11:53 PM

I think evolution is clearly correct at this point, saying organisms don't change or everything was intelligently designed is just being ignorant to the evidence. That being said I have no idea how it all started or why there is something instead of nothing.

espiex · 11-03-2006, 01:27 PM

Evolution is a great model of how life got complex. The evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in support of it.

But the issue of creation, as has been pointed out above, is quite a separate thing. You can always stick creation on the end of any model you have, and say god set it up that way.

Maybe god planted fossils to amuse himself at the ensuing uproar when humans started finding them? Maybe god created the universe and then sat back with a bowl to watch things unfold.

I'm not sure we actually can know very much for certain about what caused the Beginning, t=0. I think it's the horizon of what we, as inhabitants of this universe, can possibly know about it.

It's hard to put into words, but the very concept of 'knowing' something, of existing, hell even the concept of 'concepts', may not be applicable outside our bubble.

11-01-2006, 04:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
Bambi Wooohooo! Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fucking AZ Posts: 525 Thanks: 6 Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts	Creationism vs Evolution Is the world a product of Creationism or Evolutionism? Intelligent Design maybe? In essence, could Darwin take Jesus? __________________

11-01-2006, 07:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	A product implies a producer. Everything is, eternally. Evolution is good at describing steps in the process of being, but nothing is good at describing the first step. This leads me to believe that there is no first step. BUT, all steps have a direction to them, so all steps have an intelligence. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

11-01-2006, 07:54 PM	#5 (permalink)
tokinGLX the duke of herb Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: denver Posts: 668 Thanks: 4 Thanked 84 Times in 49 Posts	as pertaining to the orgin of life on this planet, i support the miller/urey experiment in its explanation of things. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html Miller/Urey Experiment By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life. Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments. In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere. These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun. There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced. Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall. __________________ -united we toke, divided we choke- /bored¿¿ check out my videos on youtube(feel free to leave comments/subscribe/befriend) (':

11-01-2006, 08:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
SmokeSomeDoja Lushous Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Erogenous Zones Posts: 17,396 Thanks: 238 Thanked 445 Times in 279 Posts	the whole thing is taken to extremes. one can believe in evolution and natural selection and still believe in a higher power. its completely compatible. its just the fundamentalist religious and scientific groups that refuse any leeway between the two. __________________ fotoz fo yo azz "I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."

11-02-2006, 06:32 PM	#12 (permalink)
The Rev Clear Light Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In my head, somewhere. Posts: 17,674 Thanks: 4,716 Thanked 5,059 Times in 2,710 Posts	I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive ideas. God could have set a world in motion that constantly changes. That's not a far out concept. In fact, the only reason there is a conflict between these two ideas is because some folks need to believe that God, and His religion (whatever you may happen to believe is His religion) are infallible. The bible describes a creation of the world that isn't borne out by the evidence at hand, as science has ably demonstrated. I say, "So what? The bible is wrong." It's not the end of the world, or of God. However, some people believe that if the bible can be wrong, maybe their religion can be wrong. Jeez, even GOD might be wrong. Now, suddenly, they have to think about it, and thinking is what they were trying to avoid by becoming zealously loyal to their religion in the first place. I say, "Think for yourself; derive your own conclusions from the evidence at hand." There is faith in that, too, and all the logic that science could ever want. The Rev __________________ "You're seriously flying close to the fag-sun, icarus." -Flamingnun Last edited by The Rev; 11-02-2006 at 06:37 PM.

11-01-2006, 05:05 PM	#3 (permalink)
JcP Arigatogozaimashita Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: hopefully with a hot 22 year old Posts: 4,471 Thanks: 142 Thanked 765 Times in 471 Posts	creationism is being raped by religious nuts. Evolution is a science. It does not pretend to debate where the "first cells" that eventually evolved into us came from. It's not about CREATION, its about, well, evolution. Personally, this world isn't a "product" of anything. It just is. And it is exactly what it's meant to be.

11-02-2006, 11:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
Home Wrecker material boy Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ishmaelia Posts: 4,734 Thanks: 1,429 Thanked 787 Times in 394 Posts	I think evolution is clearly correct at this point, saying organisms don't change or everything was intelligently designed is just being ignorant to the evidence. That being said I have no idea how it all started or why there is something instead of nothing. __________________ "I gyve unto my wief my second best bed" -line from Shakespeare's will

11-03-2006, 01:27 PM	#15 (permalink)
espiex Beaming live from orbit Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Over the hills and far away Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 4 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Evolution is a great model of how life got complex. The evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in support of it. But the issue of creation, as has been pointed out above, is quite a separate thing. You can always stick creation on the end of any model you have, and say god set it up that way. Maybe god planted fossils to amuse himself at the ensuing uproar when humans started finding them? Maybe god created the universe and then sat back with a bowl to watch things unfold. I'm not sure we actually can know very much for certain about what caused the Beginning, t=0. I think it's the horizon of what we, as inhabitants of this universe, can possibly know about it. It's hard to put into words, but the very concept of 'knowing' something, of existing, hell even the concept of 'concepts', may not be applicable outside our bubble. __________________ -=\|=-

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: